Bitcoin Forum

I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread specifically on volume.

There are quite a few people who swear by the volumes we are seeing. This seems to be at the root of every bear's argument.

I just looked at the volume over the past 12 days.

I compared it with the volume of 12 days in the middle of October.

An arbitrary comparison you might say, but I wanted to get a point just before the main run up to the bubble and compare with just after the bubble pop (please don't dispute the meaning of the term "bubble" unless it is directly relevant to the topic of volume).

So for the 12 days in October we have roughly 300,000 bitcoins traded for roughly $50,000,000

For the 12 days leading up to today we have roughly 125,000 bitcoins traded for roughly $100,000,000

Bearing in mind that the last 12 days sit slap bang in the holiday period I feel this is a strong signal for a bullish start to the year (also with the uptrend of course). But of course I would!  ;)

Please excuse the rough figures but what do you think?

Please also do your own comparisons of volume if you can, to back up your own views.

EDIT: Sorry, should have been more precise - Gox figures of course

we were seeing such low volume this week specifically because the price point we were consolidating at corresponds to "zero potential energy" in the oscillations caused by the crash. i am referencing a model none of you have seen, but maybe someone will know what i'm talking about :P

hint: price behavior after a sudden and significant movement can be modeled with the equations for a damped oscillator, like a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude.

--arepo

edit: here's another hint:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/oscda8.gif

Linearly decreasing amplitudes don't happen in nature, it's almost always exponential decay.
Why should price fluctuations be different?

sorry for the ambiguity. i meant to say that one example of a damped oscillator is a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude, not that that is the preferred model for price.

you don't take issue with the fact that price behavior can be modeled with the equations for damped oscillators, do you?

I agree with you more on it than almost everybody in this forum, except one or two exceptions. I rarely write about it ;)

Am I understanding it correctly then by saying that as the oscillation fades you look to see where the next move will go, and that it is at this point that you consider volume?

EDIT: or do you mean that the direction should change once the oscillation fades?

not sure what you're getting at, but allow me to clarify.

we've been oscillating about a (moving) hidden price point since the crash, similarly to the way that a pendulum swings back and forth through a point of "zero potential energy". while the system has enough energy, it does not rest at this equilibrium point, but as the system loses energy, its movement strays less and less from this point until it comes to rest. the oscillations in price are running out of "energy" and we were seeing a low-volume consolidation around this equilibrium point. "energy" is proportional to volume in this model.

--arepo

OK that's understood. So what I mean is that the closer the swings get to the point (the less energy there is in the oscillation) is the closer we get to the market moving in the next price direction, is that right?

i wouldn't write about it either but the sheer obliviousness of each new wave of investors calls to the teacher in me :D

I appreciate the lesson

yes, as the oscillations lose energy any underlying trend becomes proportionally more apparent than the effects of the initial push.

So as the energy wears out we look at volume; if it is weak we predict the price will go down - is that it in a nutshell or have I got it wrong?

nope. the entire point is that the weak volume in this case has nothing to do with any underlying trends. the weak volume is because we are about halfway through the oscillations caused by the large-volume price movement from $1200-$750, and we are very close to the equilibrium price, analogous to the zero-potential energy point in a physical oscillator.

then again, i'm sure some here will disagree. i like to apply physical models in my analysis, but a more well-accepted interpretation is that we are entering a sustained period of low-volume consolidation as the market begins to "forget" about the November-December volatility, and decides on a new trend. this kind of quiet occurs after all large price movements.

--arepo

Thanks very much for the explanation.

A new question
Do markets "learn" from the surprise of the rise and next similar rise will be more damped or we expect a similar oscilation for similar price changes?

this questions reminds me of another that still baffles me. consistent patterns in price data ("autocorrelations") are not supposed to exist under the efficient market hypothesis. however, triangle consolidation patterns are extremely common and robust in the bitcoin universe, and at least make appearances in the larger financial world, as well. if traders are able to anticipate these behaviors, they should be able to profit from them and, in doing so, negate them -- as your intuition tells you, "damping" the oscillation more and more each time-- but we don't see this occurring! either way, there is a very complex feedback loop that creates the environment in which they form.

that being said, it's difficult to say from my own work anything other than that they occur, they occur consistently in response to sudden and large ("high-energy") price movements, they occur on all scales, and their mechanism is similar to the physics of a ball bouncing or a pendulum swinging, depending on the environment.

in other words, the market does not seem to "learn" in this regard and the magnitude and type of the damping is the product of a complex feedback loop that is difficult to predict.

--arepo

volume has literally dropped 75% or more on all exchange compared to the last month.

not sure what that means in bitcoin land, but in stocks, thats a bad thing, shows declining interest.

with bitcoin its really no good as there are mining coins coming online every day. stocks do not have new shares issued every day.

This shit again?

0/10 troll harder

...the price of bitcoin was 200-500 first half of Nov. also, the price fell in Dec, so what your saying is actually bullish. more people buying than selling in the last two months.

yeah because everyone knows increasing price but declining volume is bullish.

you all greedy augustus gloops

The real jasonjm, ladies and gents.  If this is such a scam, what the hell are you even doing here?

I see serious price decline in December if you look at the day chart.

its a TOTAL f-in scam. I am here making money - speculating. Well maybe not more money, I made money, I might try make more if it crashes by buying in again, but I might not. See where it crashes to and for how long.

But its a total and utter scam (bitcoin and all the other coins). Not a single coin is designed in any other way but to enrich the early adopters at the expense of everyone else. If someone comes up with a coin that is sustainable and makes long term sense, I will buy in long term, but so far all I see is scam crap.

Would I put any of my life saving into bitcoin long term? not a chance.

All you kool aid drinking bitcoin cheerleaders can buy in and welcome your new 1000 overlords who hold more than 50% of all coins.

 If any of you are one of the 1000 overlords, I congratulate you on your fortune, and wish you well in raping the millions of bagholders.

yeah and since then volume has literally vanished, down 50% on all exchanges to 90% on some.....

so you have rising prices on vanishing volume.

here take a look at this "bullish" chart

http://imgur.com/E9uo5du (http://imgur.com/E9uo5du)

nothing is bearish for bitcoin on this forum. Oh yeah, i figured out why, everyone here is holding bitcoins, and counting on the next wave of "investors" to buy in so they can dump their coins at $10 000+ and then live like kings on the fiat.

Fuck me. If Hodling means this guy never gets another coin then I say Hodl!  ;D

You are just JEALOUS. Even if Bitcoin was a scam, if you had the balls to HOLD to 10k you would do it in a heartbeat. Your just in it for the $$$ anyway, as you have said over and over. The problem is you sold in the 400s because you have no balls. Now you hate the fact that Bitcoin is going to the fucking 5 figures without you.

The big boys from wall street are already moving in and your ass will have to go back to trading corn and other commodities hoping to make enough to pay the electricity bill.

My only intention of getting more bitcoin would be if I could dump them on someone else at a higher price, so you safe whatever bitcoin does as long term I will always have zero bitcoins.

I have never ever said I am here to do anything but make money out of bitcoin. If you told me with a 100% guarantee that if I bought bitcoin tomorrow at 800 and in 2 months it would be 1600 I would go all in, tomorrow.

I still think its a total scam either way

BTW I am still mining away, stupid litecoins, selling them every single day, to people who want spend good money on garbage - with free electricity in data centers I might add.

And yeah I have an agenda, try make more money out of bitcoin if possible. At least I am honest about it, unlike everyone else who goes around promoting bitcoin as digital jesus, when all they want to do is get rich and really don't give a rats ass about bitcoin other than the fact it could make them rich.

and unless volume picks up, odds are extremely high bitcoin crashes again - since the title of this thread is VOLUME. lets see how it plays out

Yes, but you can't. You sold instead to hold. You are the loser, we are the winners. No winners without losers.

OMG

What would make long term sense in your mind? Just curious how you can describe "I want to be an early adopter without risking anything or doing anything" in other words.

And btw, you just missed your chance to be one of bitcoin's early adopters at $500/gox. You might have another one at $2000, if you can spend some time understanding what bitcoin actually is by then.

When you created your account on 3/19/2013, Bitcoin was at around $64.  You would have enjoyed a > 10x gain if you had just bought and held.  Instead, you trolled and tried to play Gordon Gecko.  So you're basically admitting to being a lousy speculator.  Fair enough.  


One could make the same argument for gold, Microsoft or Coca Cola.  By your definition, they are scams because there wasn't a fair distribution process.  "Fairness" seems to be your litmus test for whether something is a scam or not, which proves to me you haven't given your position much thought.


So you'll be a fiat bagholder.  Congrats.


The truth is you hate yourself for missing the boat and are taking it out on everyone else.  If you really think we're just a bunch of bagholders, then you shouldn't buy any more Bitcoin, because the rug will get pulled at any time.  Thus, you should just lick your wounds, leave the forum and go do something more productive with your time.

Volumes at exchanges are rising. Even btcchina volume has doubled from around 3000 to 7000 at the moment. Bullish signs are everywhere.

Traders, speculators have no interest in the underlying technologies and how it could evolve over the next 5-10 years, looking only as far as the end of their nose selling high buying low generally they don't hold any for the long term and believe everyone else has or should have the same view.

They likely keep making money on the volatility but less than they would have if they had just left the btc/Ltc in a wallet and done something else with their time as inevetiably they mis-time the markets repeatedly along the way.

Keep in mind many here hold bitcoins and rather than spending all day looking at charts they busy themselves in building infastructure, services etc. that will increase Bitcoin adoption As they believe it's more than just a toy for day traders

Volume coming back? On the last few days of holiday?

Be prepared for a January like you've never seen before, boys and girls!  :D

In honour of the topic title:
Re: VOLUME

Volume doesn't really influence the price directly. Actors place the value of the coins, some place a value far up, and hold coins. Others place a low value or are uninformed, they are out.

Change in mind can be upwards on the bear side, and upwards on the holder side. Only when someone changes his mind to the other side of the intersection point, there is a trade and therefore volume. It is the same in all markets.

The most usual change of mind to make here is to change from uninformed to informed, that is the change from non-user to user, that is a marginal change in mind upwards. More users, more volume, upwards. But it doesn't have to be.

You gotta love when people who traded stocks come to Bitcoin and think they are smart asses with all their fancy indicators.

I would bet that most of the people on here who talk about indicators have never actually traded real money in their life before, and penny stocks don't count.

Don't try to act like your simple differential equation is somehow obscure, nub.

the equation itself is not obscure. its application in this way perhaps may be. i certainly have only seen one other poster make the connection i just made, and the model im referencing is a little bit more complex than just mapping this equation to the price.

further, as i have butt heads with many posters here about the value of technical analysis, it seems that a firm grasp of even regular calculus is not incident in the majority. so while this equation may seem extremely familiar to you (and i, as well), it is relatively obscure as far as i am concerned if many here would require significant explanation to stomach it.

anyway, apologies for any perceived esotericism.

--arepo